Based on what I see, I suspect that AugustO is a parodist who tries to anger Andy so that we can get some more crazy stuff out of teh fly. Unsigned by BoN— Unsigned, by: 125.178.92.173 / talk / contribs

As a parodist i can't see what August has really accomplished, all he's done is try and fail to make the articles more factual and make andy look a fool, two things we knew already and could do much easier/funnier than how august goes about it--MikallakiM 04:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

As a long-time "troll" of Andy's blog, I don't see AugustO as a parodist. I think he's the type of cat that speaks "truth-to-power", and may appear as a parodist to the uninitiated. Though... I may be wrong, I like the things that he does. --Inquisitor (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I see August as a lion in the guise of a man, an impossibly tall hero with long golden hair that flows like a river of silky wheat. Around his broad chest is a cloak made of the skin of the first and last man to cross him, his belt is leather from a dire crocodile he killed with his bare thumbs, and his gonads are the size of grapefruits. He is some kind of uberman that would bring racial purists of all creeds and colours to their knees, crying out their praises, knowing full well that the one true Master Race has been found, and it is AugustO. In short I kind of like the dude and am continually surprised by how well his invulnerability armour is holding up. He is cool. --Sasayaki (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hard to beat that ^. Anyway, parodist probably isn't the right term, but he doesn't seem to be a good faith editor either. He's fairly intelligent and certainly realizes how ridiculous Conservapedia and Andy are. I suspect AugustO likes poking Andy with a stick just for the hilarious responses and intellectual take-downs. Whether he's been successful at it, though, is another question (personally, I think he's much better than most who have tried). --Night Jaguar (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little bit disappointed that he intends to cut back on editing for lent, a Real Christian Conservative™ would increase the number of contributions....

BTW: nice touch with the teh fly, dear BON. Is this a clever plan to get Sid to confess that he is August? --larron (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

He's not a parodist otherwise he wouldn't be removing parody from articles that hadn't so far been noticed by the usual suspects. Auld Nick (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There was a red telephone on CP shortly after I posted this but it disappeared too quickly. rpeh •T•C•E• 11:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"Why are you using the pronoun 'your'?"img I don't really understand this comment from Ken. The only thing I can think of is he means "why are you assuming there's only one of me and that I'm male?" Analyzing such a statement from an English speaker wouldn't support such a conclusion, of course, since "your" covers both genders and plural as well as singular, but as Ken has no first language I stand by it. Whoover (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw that and was likewise puzzled. I came to the same conclusion as you, namely that Ken can't speak English. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What's even weirder is that in JohanZ's comment, "To be fair Oscar, where else on the internet can you learn all that?" the "you" doesn't even refer to Ken, it refers to OscarO. Could it be that Ken did not approve of what he saw as an impersonal you, referring to humanity in general? Would he have prefered "where else can one learn all that" or "where else can all that be learned"? Naah, he's so vain, he probably thinks this song definitely thinks all comments on the talk page are about him. Spud (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

IOW, Ken hears the question about "your church" as "Do you think you are God?" It's not Ken's church, it's God's church. Interesting, Ken still struggle's with confusing himself with God, and has to ask if he's giving that impression. nobsWould you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage? 05:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "your" can cover both genders and plural as well as singular...BUT the singular church assumes that all these multiple identities attend one church. I think he was trying to obfuscate in his usual ridiculous style, but trying to introduce the wrinkle that not only are their multiple users controlling that account (is there really no Conservapedia rule against sharing an account?) but that they are spread out geographically. Instead of his questioning "your" he should have said, "what do you mean by your church" to continue....oh fuck, I can't believe I'm trying to analyze Ken's idiocy. Jared (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Bugger! I completely got hold of the wrong end of the stick again. I must have been reading that page without my glasses on this morning.--Spud (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia seems to use the same software as other wikipedias but I can't email other users. Does anyone know how to get in touch with GregG? Thanks much. Nate. Nate Keaton (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNNN!!!! Jesus Azathoth Christ I hope someone brings this to il Douche's attention pronto, I think the moment andy is forced to cast his wetdreamboy into the pit of evil libruls will be one of the more hilarious acts of idiocy from andy in recent memory Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 23:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No way. Unless he wished to make himself unemployable, Tebow had to bow the wishes of the liberal NFL and violate his moral compass. He's another Christian martyr. Piece of cake. Whoover (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

People need to see this and know that it came from the pen of Terry Hurlbut[edit]

This is one of the most disgusting smears I've yet seen against the president. It brings together some of the most emotionally charged lies wingnuts tell, but Terry Hurlbut manages to take it farther. He's not just making an off the cuff Godwin. He's really and truly diving deep into attempting to justify why he thinks Obama is the equivalent of a Hitler. This is disturbingly twisted stuff. Hurlbut even sees himself as a sort of Victor Kugler protecting Jews against the advancing US government:

“”I am confident that many of them would come to me to shout a warning, or even to wonder whether, at need, they could take refuge in my home. That is, if they haven’t already “made Aliyah,” i.e., emigrated to Israel. Which I now encourage them to do, for their own safety, while the emigrating is good.

Obama deserves the Hitler comparison. He asked for it:

“”Obama asked for the specific Hitler comparison when he severely disrespected the Prime Minister of Israel and suggested they retreat behind the 1949 Armistice Line and consent to the re-division of Jerusalem. So don’t dare claim to speak for the Jews on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama.

But of course, he never did anything of the kind. Hurlbut is referring to Obama declining to meet with Netanyahu on short notice during the period of heightened Israeli/Iranian tensions in September 2012 because he wasn't going to be in the same city. He also mentioned the 1967 armistice lines with mutual swaps as a compromise recommendation for peace. It's not as if Israel's conquest beyond the 1949 armistice lines to capture the Gaza Strip and West Bank isn't still a controversial subject, even among some Jews (me included). Compromise with Hamas is within the realm of reasonable, whether or not you agree with the position in general or the substance of this particular suggestion. But this is apparently exactly what Hitler would do.

“”Those Jews whose feelings you dare say I just hurt, remember that first Hitler told them they didn’t need guns, and then told them to board the trains.

Right. I'm sure Eastern European Jews were as heavily armed in the 40's as American militia people are now.
I guess it's not surprising that this is where the extreme right is driving the argument. It's a perfect setup for the rapture, or more likely, manipulating credulous believers into believing we're nearing the end times, with Obama conveniently playing the roll of the anti-christ. Kudos to DinsdaleP for handling himself with more composure than most could muster. 19:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So tosser is a hateful, self righteous, and intellectually retarded shitwaffle, who thinks that an uppity nigger with a funny name who vaguely opposes tosser's dogma being president is an equal atrocity to 12 million people being butchered for the crime of being born. Is there anyone even vaguely surprised at this point? this is a man who has openly complained about god not sending his personal enemies to hell and whose fondest dream is to watch the world burn while building his own authoritarian theocracy. He is not, nor has ever been, nor will be anything other than an utter and complete piece of shit Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 23:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's one thing to spout utter shit from their mind to the internet, but he believes his crap so much that he believes it's as bad as Jews being wiped out in WWII that they will come to him for help and shelter. He drove up the crazy cliff and plunged right off into scary territory. To top that off, he has fantasies of "leading" people to independence, be it from this "tyranny" or against the government. Holy moly. NorsemanCyser Melomel 01:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Terry really seems to be developing some sort of Messianic complex - if he's not being the post-disaster militia leader (thanks to his generator), then he's leading the Chosen people to safety. Not only that, but he's also the sole arbitrator as to who gets to appear in his beloved Creation Hall of Fame (hint: Old Earth Creationists can fuck right off!). I used to think he was doing a Coulter - deliberately being offensive in order to attract attention - but given that he genuinely seems to believe this shit, I think it's safe to say that Terry's hatred of the Black Man in the White House has finally driven him insane. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 07:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Like you, I used to think he was only attention-seeking, but I've come to realise that he really means it. The American hard right wing seems trapped in a feedback loop in which they only listen to each other, only hear one side of any argument and therefore get more and more strident in their rhetoric. It happened in the election, where people like Dick Morris started believing their own idiotic predictions of a Romney victory and it's happening with Chuckarse and Insanitary, where initial claims of Obama being elitist have escalated to the point where he's a gestalt reincarnation of Hitler, Stalin and any other hate figure they can think of. I'd call it "group think", but I don't believe thinking plays much of a role in what Chucky writes. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh god. This is going to be so delicious. Tielec01 (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I didn't see that this had already been mentioned earlier. Anyway, a different source. VOXHUMANA 03:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Countdown to Tebow being martyred on the altar of the liberal media and liberal NFL and then never mentioned again. Whatever happened to Andy's other mancrush, Jeremy Lin? --PsyGremlinSermā! 07:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

He's spoken out about thinking the mistranslation project is misguided. But he is such an arrogant and disloyal asshole and has such open contempt for Andy, indeed anyone he disagrees with, that he'll use the front page of Andy's own blog to shit talk him while promoting his own interests. Nice. 18:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm must admit, if I was looking for somebody to promote my brand, Ken would rank just behind a deaf mute crack whore I found in the gutter, who'll do anything for her next fix. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 18:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Can the deaf mute crack whore open her eyes? If so then I will take her approval before I take kennys. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I know they know about him but they clearly don't care. I'm aware of a few people pointing them toward such delights as "cold fish" "liberal protestant whores." 18:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Now thats a group I want to get behind, one thats... ok with Ken's rantings. --Revolverman (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just a hazard of the job. Every high profile religious group is absolutely flooded with lunatics. As long as they keep getting the money they aren't going to give a shit how crazy their fans are. --JeevesMkIIThe gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course they know about Ken, and they know he's a crank. And when you're the subject of a crank's obsession, your best bet is to ignore them. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

For some time I have been unable to reach CP. while I do not get 403's, my browsers safari and chrome running on iOS 6.x and IE and Firefox running under Windoze 7 all show server time-outs. I tried running a traceroute from my router to conservapedia.com and got these results:

traceroute to 65.60.9.250 (65.60.9.250) ,30 hops max,40 byte packet

196.271.36.1 (196.271.36.1) 10. 0 ms 0. 0 ms 0. 0 ms

68.85.72.33 (68.85.72.33) 10. 0 ms 10. 0 ms 10. 0 ms

69.139.194.113 (69.139.194.113) 20. 0 ms 20. 0 ms 10. 0 ms

68.86.91.185 (68.86.91.185) 20. 0 ms 20. 0 ms 10. 0 ms

68.86.88.138 (68.86.88.138) 30. 0 ms 40. 0 ms 40. 0 ms

68.86.84.86 (68.86.84.86) 40. 0 ms 30. 0 ms 30. 0 ms

173.167.57.126 (173.167.57.126) 40. 0 ms 40. 0 ms 40. 0 ms

69.31.111.94 (69.31.111.94) 30. 0 ms 40. 0 ms 30. 0 ms

65.60.7.18 (65.60.7.18) 40. 0 ms 40. 0 ms 40. 0 ms

* * * *

* * * *

* * * *

....

Question: Can their server be set-up in such a way as to shunt "undesirable" IP's to a time-out ashcan?
JoJo TDFB (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course and they've done that in the past. At one point Schlafly blocked a huge number of foreign IPs from even viewing the site but I don't think he's done it for at least a year. What is the exact error? I assume you're running your iOS device on the same network as your PC. 22:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the exact errror is timeout. That's the normal behavior when your IP is blocked. The TCP connection is refused by the server and the client doesn't even get confirmation that there's a server there. It's the safest way to block. Whoover (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I might have pointed it out before, but the stylistic similarities between the posts of Ken and the DPRK are striking. Substitute atheism for U.S. nuclear blackmail and it could be from questionevolution. Whoover (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Just what the family-friendly encyclopaedia needs. --PsyGremlinTala! 13:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

He's also improving the article on Integers, by moving all the formal, advanced mathematics to the end. I've no idea what he thinks is too advanced for ninth grade in that article, but there you go. (There is one sentence which involves actual algebraic concepts.)

I think it's great that he assumes this is some sort of conspiracy. The only logical way to explain the introduction of technical terminology and comprehensive explanations at CP is that trolls and parodists are sabotaging the project. Phiwum (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ed is lightyears ahead of everyone in terms of creepiness. I'd rather see him be a petty dick because this shit makes me seriously uncomfortable. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Between Andy, Ken and Ed, who needs parodists to destroy CP? Ed's "work" on trashing their maths articles is up there on a par with Bugler's best work. "Conservapedia - the encyclopaedia for people who don't understand big words." --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

is far less child friendly than Wikipedia (or even Uncyclopedia and Rationalwiki)

may well be the subject of more rubber-necking/'what have #they said now#ism than actual influence.

its actual influence may be negative (an analogue of the joke in which the man on the desert island who built two churches and when asked why on being rescued - 'that one is the one #I don't go to.#'). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about "less child friendly". It's full of assholes writing asshole things and being assholes in basically every discussion they get involved in, but that doesn't equate to an encyclopaedia that is automatically not child friendly. Although I guess it depends what your definition of "child friendly" is. I wouldn't want a child under my care being exposed to the views and beliefs that CP expresses, but there is a disturbingly large portion of the world who would. X Stickman (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't want my child exposed to the racist apocalyptic ramblings of a creature like Terry Hurlbut. I don't want my child exposed to the gloating cultist who has the most personal of personal attacks for everyone he disagrees with and who gleefully misrepresents the nature of science and ignores or misrepresents contrary evidence, to the extent he's even sophisticated to understand it. It is a very serious problem to have "encyclopedia" articles on important and divisive issues written by a halfwit with a fringe agenda that are locked from any improvement and basically filled with nothing but cherry picked quotes. Pathetic. Can you imagine a young person not having the facility to critically examine the proposition that not being exactly the kind of christian you're supposed to be will make you obese and mentally retarded? Can you imagine a child seeing how an ostensibly well-known conservative argues by assertion. Andy Schlafly is incapable of marshaling facts to support his whatthefuckery. Ed Poor? He's creepy. That's about all I'll say about him since people here have crossed the line, not that I personally disagree with some of it. No sir. That place is an absolute cesspit. There is no possible way a responsible parent could let a child incapable of understanding the difference between harmless silliness that's easy to respond to critically and dangerous hate speech. 17:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well yeah, you say that, but Andy teaches classes of children whose parents have actively chosen to have him as their teacher. My point was really that it's not "not child friendly" in the classic way of having pictures of genitals or whatever, not that it's a great place for children to hang out. X Stickman (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, this doesn't say anything helpful about anal cancer. I'm sure anyone would be happy to discuss with their children that they can increase their odds of get it by having gay sex and sticking crystal meth up their asses. 22:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

While I'm certain that sticking crystal meth up your anus, or any orifice for that matter is not going to end well, I see no reason how being gay will lead to the same result. (And if you are going to ask whether or not I'm going to change that, you know perfectly well I'll get reverted by User:C). Brenden (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

An aside, I would like to point out, that the ratio of parody pages and users, to actual good faith users has increased in favor of the genuine users. Blatant parody is largely absent, and the number of influential, dedicated users, such as AugustO, have made sure that the parody is removed quickly. Brenden (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You're joking, right? And you think YOU don't stand out as a "parodist" whatever that means? Nate Keaton (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ouch. Nate, what leads you to accuse that I am a parodist? Brenden (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

what leads you to accuse that I am a parodist? The fact you are editing Conservapedia. Acei9 03:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Here, have some internets for that. I just laughed pizza out my nose. Also, I see the little man has blocked my twitter account :) --PsyGremlinZungumza! 18:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I never understood that feature. All you have to do is log out and there's nothing he can do about you viewing his profile unless he makes his account private, which is a real drag. And I think you can still tweet at people who've blocked you. 18:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I find his other link today way more pathetic. "Will you hold my cellphone? I promise, I won't ask you to touch anything else." And the weird woman on stilts. Is there a prize for parsing, "According to Alexa, YouTube refers 1.55% of their web traffic from YouTube. It used to be higher, one of our lady volunteers had to cease her volunteer work due to family obligations."?

But the Darwinian-induced hairstyles are pretty good too. Whoover (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Must admit a few of the ladies on the QE blog look quite nice, but evolution tends not lead to good looking, clever women (or men, according to a book I read). Also on that page,God knows the future, so why create people who are opposed to you, such as evilutionests just to send them to hell? Bevo74 (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

How could evolution not lead to individuals that the species finds attractive? Whether cleverness is an advantage or not, surely sexual attractiveness is.Phiwum (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Might be a bit crass, but I'd say that willingness to have sex > sexual attractiveness in terms of reproduction. In humans, at least. X Stickman (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If I remember correctly most of don't think we're up to reproducing with very atractive, clever partners, so we give ourselves a choice between clever, average looking partners or more attractive less clever partners (or it could all be rubbish). Bevo74 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

We received a note recently from XXXXX XXXXXX regarding a book that you are preparing for middle school students. We have a passion for creation teaching, especially for children. My wife XXXX has extensive experience in teaching creation to children, and we would be very interested in reviewing your book if the need arises. Our two children (ages XX and XX) could also provide feedback from their perspective.

We can be reached at the contact information below. Thanks.

Doesn't that just read like Ken's writing style? The international man of mystery gets even more mysterious, he's now a woman in Texas! CS Miller (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems that old age isn't slowing the internet atheism killing machine that is Ken. Kenneth I suggest you explore the links between Homosexuality and the Catholic Church as there seems to be a dearth of material on this subject which can be quote mined. On another subject guess who's block has run out ? Anyway back to heaven for me, Jesus is wanting some more online communities destroyed. XOXO GhostofTK (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Synonyms for a tyrant are oppressor, dictator, bully, despot, persecutor.

How fitting."

What the fuck? It's fitting that the word "tyrant" has synonyms that mean something similar to "tyrant"? Phiwum (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait. This post mentions giving assemblies at 341 high schools. Surely, Terry has done no such thing. I think that maybe he's re-posting something written by Bradlee Dean (who?). Phiwum (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Following links to figure out who Bradlee Dean is (answer: nobody), I found his band's home page which features an utterly pointless rotating view of an urban skyline. But why is this American Christian Rock band (from Annandale Minnesota, population 3,000) using an image of Hong Kong? Does this have something to do with cute long-haired Asian Christian ladies?

And why am I wasting my time thinking about these things? Darn you, Hippo. Darn you to heck. Phiwum (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

“”After performing constitutional lyceums in 341 high schools across America, I have seen firsthand the indoctrination being imposed on the future generations of this great country – which, for the most part, they are rejecting.

—What's he complaining about? Oh...

Well no wonder they're rejecting his indoctrination if he usually communicates the exact opposite of what he intends and sounds like a dick doing it. This guy needs to learn how to speak English and something about the constitution if he's going to "perform" "constitutional lyceums" in schools. 17:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

(Merged from my own section, a minute late with this one!) Where on earth does Andy get the impression that either Hilary or Michelleimg will be running for president? Everything I've read suggests Hilary is pretty much retired from politics at this point, and I've never read anything to suggest Michelle has any ambitions on that score. I kind of like this idea though, Terry would have a shit fit if Michelle were elected. OBAMA'S MARXIST PUPPET WIFE RULES US! GET YOUR GUNS AND GOLD! --JeevesMkIIThe gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of people have been speculating that Clinton will run, so that's no surprise--shit, she was pretty much made the heir apparent on one NPR show I caught a while ago. As for Mrs Obama, yeah, I could see Andy arguing for a circumvention of the term limit through spousal election a la Lurleen Wallace. Nailed a retread to my feetand prayed for better weather. 00:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever else happens, we now have a cap in which Andy calls Michelle Obama "Christian" and "American". It's sad that US politics has descended to the point where this is relevant. rpeh •T•C•E• 00:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't their a chain letter back in 08 before Obama really smashed onto the stage that Hillery was going to nominate Bill as her Running mate, and that if she one, she'd step down, and give a Bill a third term? --Revolverman (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there was something floating around with that, unfortunately for the wingnut crowd, it's not possible. You can't be Vice President unless you're eligible to be President. SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 21:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but Bill is eligible for another two years. He couldn't run for president but wouldn't that make him eligible for the VP spot? Ayzmo (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The 12th Amendment states, "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The 22nd Amendment makes Bill constitutionally ineligible to be president. The current Supreme Court would probably says that this precludes Bill but not Dubya. Whoover (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"a film about one of Democrat President Jimmy Carter's few decisive actions" "a film about the time when socialist Canada saved a bunch of Americans, even though Hollywood left most of that part out." Fixed that for you. - PowderSmokeAndLeather

True. (I haven't seen the film, so I've just checked the Canadian bit on an atheist socialist liberal baby-eating wiki. You're quite right.) - Cardinal Fang

Did something break on this page? --Revolverman

Apparently so. - PowderSmokeAndLeather

He's probably aiming for a "proven right" thing rather than sticking to whatever flimsy excuses for principles he has. Argo seems likely to win going by the other big awards, though I'd like to know how it's conservative. Lincoln, unlikely, also I would like to know... Basically, how any film outside of Atlas Shrugged and ones about the great achievements of any political figure have any political affiliation. Lincoln you could argue is liberal, but as a liberal I say unto thee that it is SO BORING. Les Mis FTW. But basically as long as Zero Dark Mother Fucking Thirty stays out of it, I really don't give a shit. What is it with Andy and the Oscars, anyway? --I came, I saw, I shat

We can speculate as to why in Andy's Wonderland these films are either liberal or conservative, but someone want to burn a sock to ask the pertinent question? Has Andrew Schlafly sat through the complete running time of both Argo and Lincoln? If he says no, we can safely dismiss anything he says and he finally proves that he's nothing but a sheep following talking points that suit him rather than leading and doing the work himself.

For everyone's information, on the movie radio show I guest on, we came out with our support of Argo way back when the nominations came out back in January. We thought Argo deserved it (having seen it unlike Andy) and that Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty were substandard offerings and were only nominated for political reasons. -- IscariotAndy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 06:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, Andy neverimg said anything about the oscars. EVER I tell you. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears you missed the memo. Fox, Hannity, Malkin, Rove, Coulter, Romney, Limbaugh and Tea Party Express no longer make the cut. Whoover (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Never forget that wingnuttery is sustained by paranoid delusions. Andy honestly thinks that when a Democrat watches Argo he's rooting for the Iranian captors, because Andy doesn't and liberals always do the opposite. Everything else follows. Whoover (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, apparantly the guy (according to andy) "makes Conservapedia appear liberal!". I have seen fucking Daleks who are less right wing than andy's blog. I just wonder what excuse he will make when his prediction inevitably crashes and burns Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 22:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Why does CP keep claiming that dictators who are clearly alive are in fact dead? Is this some sort of liberal/illuminati scheme or are they just trying their hand at speculative fiction? 147.138.6.14 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe it's not leftist leaders, but Latinos? Maybe Andy believes everyone born south of the Rio Grande is really dead and has been replaced by a body double. That's why we can't let these impostors cross the border! Note: whatever you think of Hugo Chávez, he was democratically-elected. --Night Jaguar (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Because Andy's a nutter who believes every idiotic thought that flashes through his mind is god-breathed truth. Because once he's said something he has such a horror of ever admitting he's wrong he'll defend it beyond the point of ridiculousness. Because... liberals? --JeevesMkIIThe gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it started out when Castro was in the hospital, Andy probably said something like "He probably died and their just withholding the information to make a transition of power smoother," then, when Castro came out not-dead, someone probably mentioned it non-threateningly to Andy, and he dug in his heels and refused to admit he's wrong because he's a spiteful prick. </run-on sentence> Carlaugust (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

^That's the thing. Thinking Castro died in the hospital and that the Cuban authorities covered it up for a few days isn't a strange thought, it wouldn't surprise me if they had (but they didn't). Saying, "Castro might be dead and they aren't admitting it" isn't a a bizarre claim to make in the first few days prior to images and video appearing. The problem starts when you take "Castro is dead" and turn it into a part of your entire unshakeable world view; a world view in which a single admission of fault brings the whole thing down. Next thing you know, months go by and pictures and video of Castro alive appear and in order for Andy to maintain his world he has to claim they're increasingly complex body doubles. At the very least I'd imagine that in his subconscious mind he would admit, "oops, I was wrong about that." Instead he goes deeper and decides that every sick leftist leader is actually dead. If you consider this, the rest of Andy's bizarre beliefs become clearer. Creationism isn't that much of a stretch if you wont admit that video of a living speaking Castro indicates he is alive, let alone that most people in the world don't think he's dead. --Marlow (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy's dead communist conspiracy theory has to be his most isolating delusion to date. He has no problem finding people who'll jump on board with creationism, birtherism or just about any right wing fantasy, but no one thinks Castro is dead. I can even understand his opposition to relativity, it's complicated and Einstein is a big target for marginalized pseudo-intellectuals, but this is pure narcissistic paranoia. This is Andy at his most pathological, unwilling to admit even the most obvious error. Andy is giving Ken a run for his money in the "it's not cool to laugh at the mentally ill" department. --Marlow (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The thing is, communist nations have been known to hide the deaths of the their leaders, so Andy isn't completely pulling this out of his ass. The flaw is they'd hide the deaths for a few days or a week or two at most, not for years, as would be the case if Andy had this right. (And at least for the USSR, the western press would cover rumors that the leader in question was no longer among the living.) It's probably not unreasonable to assume that Cuba will try to hide Castro's death for a short period, to make sure the new leadership is prepared for the turmoil that will happen when he's gone.
Of course, when Castro does finally die, Andy will insist he had it right all along. "Today, the lamestream media acknowledged what Conservapedia has known for years..." MDB(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Rememember, Fidel Castro isn't the head of state in Cuba anymore, his brother Raul is (there should be an accent on the "u" but for some reason the "Special characters" wotsit isn't working for me).

I know it's been said before but I'll bring it up again anyway. When was the last time Andy Schlafly was seen in public? How do we know he's not dead? Spud (talk) 12:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I sure havent seen any public appearances of him since his hilarious attempt to teach his brand of history and law to actual judges. Obviously he killed himself in shame afterwards, and his body was brought back from the dead in a dark voodoo ceremony which resulted in him becoming Ken and Chuckarse's personal brainwashed slave. This explains why they both are able to defecate on him and his beloved wiki with impunity. Denial of this will automatically certify you as a Nambla oriented Commienazi and result in your instant imprisonment in the Rationalwiki Brig. (seriously though, i give it a few months till andy decides Fidel and Chavez are alive, but only because they sold their souls to Lucifer to come back from the dead)Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 14:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Night Jaguar is right. What's really bizarre is that he's doubled down on an obviously losing bet with Hugo Chavez. To suffer the embarrassment of declaring Castro dead and the refusing to admit he is alive despite video evidence is one thing, but to try and do it again with another Latin dictator is truly insane. --Marlow (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You'd think that at least one of Chavez's political opponents, who are hardly reticent about his failings and would have the most to gain from the exposure, would make something of this great conspiracy, if there was any rational basis to it at all. But no, it's just Andy contra mundum. Cantabrigian (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The most confusing part is that there's no reason for anyone to pretend he's still alive, at all. Not even within Andy's own crazy worldview, as far as I can tell. Even North Korea admits it when their leaders die, although they do admittedly delay the announcement by a few weeks (although the death was in the news before the announcement somehow). X Stickman (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Chavez is a socialist. Liberalism = Socialism = Communism = Stalinism; therefore Chavez is a dictator (and Obama is trying to become one). Venezuela could be a case study in democracy. He was voted into office twice (or was he simply voted back in after a coup, I can't remember) by an overwhelming majority by appealing directly to that majority - the poor. Now Venezuela's rich, and the rich in other countries, are all butthurt that democracy works because they cannot conceive of a world where the poor would want a better life. Tobe fair, though, Chavez has done a few decidedly dictatory things... like his televised rants. Add to this that Venezuela is one of the major oil producers in the world (the biggest outside of OPEC/Middle East?), and those countrires are ALWAYS ruled by dictators. Also, love the Buffy reference.Sokar (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Where to start? 'Children' is obviously meant to be poetic, so there is no contradiction. However, if you were being narrowly literal-minded then "The sons of Israel brought a willing offering unto the LORD, every man and woman..." wouldn't make sense either. Hell, countries don't produce human offspring. At no time does Andy mention anything about Hebrew language or culture, which would seem to matter here. Things like Noah's ark and the talking donkey are what actually makes the Bible sound like stories for children. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

They're called the "children of Israel" because each and every one of them is theoretically the descedent of Israel, aka Jacob. The country was named after the Patriarch. Since Israel is really a kind of title, meaning "wrestled with God"(? it's been a while), there are further implications in it's use as a national name, especially when you take into account things like the Exodus. "The Children of Israel" can literally be interpreted as "the descendents of he/they that wrestled with God". The "people of Israel" is quite a distortion, and I would have expected bible-bashers like those at CP to know that. All that aside, isn't changing the language from the masculine collective to the gender neutral collective a bit... liberal?Sokar (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

They're changing "children of Israel" to "Sons of Israel" because it's more conservative. Whoover (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised he didn't claim it was changed to 'children' as a PC move towards gender inclusive language. Or maybe that's more Ed Poor than it is Andy Schlafly.--"Shut up, Brx." 06:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy's latest comes pretty close. Sons implies daughters like "Congressman" implies Michelle Bachmann. The more I observe CP the more I'm convinced that almost everyone there is a parodist and Andy is the only one who doesn't know. The originator of the change, so warmly thanked by Andy, justifies it with, "the use of the word "Bnei" (sons) in the original text supports conservatism, unlike any translation which uses a sex neutral word." In other words, it's conservative to distort a translation that preserves Hebrew's native gender-neutral sense by excluding women from the "Children of Israel." Only Andy thinks like that. Everybody else knows that Andy thinks like that, feeds him this crap and laughs. It's an amazing place. Whoover (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I would be incredibly impressed with the masterful parodists that we currently know as Ken and Kjerk and dog please let Pitchfanny be a parodist. But at the same time, there'd be a sort of creeping horror, because if this scenario is true, Andy steals the title of "longest, most extensive trolling campaign victim" from Christian W. Chandler (aka Chris-chan aka CWC, of "Sonichu" infamy), and Andy is not known to be on the autism spectrum, no less. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 20:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if K-jerk and Thrustbum were parodists as they've both spent a fair bit of effort writing delusional wingnut blogs of their very own, independent of CP. Ed Impoverishedmind strikes me as 'real' - why would a parodists waste his time beig so nasty? I don't care if Conservative is giving CP a bad name by being a parodist or by being an idiot; either way, he's doing a great job of discrediting CP - keep it up! Cardinal Fang(talk) 21:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of parodists, a new editor added this gem of incoherence to E=mc2:

E=mc2 Doesn’t Compute because the quantities assigned to units of measurement (seconds, kilometres and kilograms), were randomly chosen by humans and thus cannot validate the tangible energy of a given mass designed in nature. Because random values cannot validate the tangible, the result of E=mc2 is abstract and so meaningless.

It's a quote from a manic's ravings found on the internet. When it was deleted Andy restored it saying "censorship is not the way of the future." Bravo, Gryfin. Whoover (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that User:Conservative's pretense that we don't know whether it is one person or many who write with his bizarre style is one of his more endearing traits. Yes, it's bad to mock the obviously deranged, but this is honestly adorable. Phiwum (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm treading dangerously close to internet psychoanalysis, but I wonder if the weird phraseology is because he's trying desperately not to lie. There's no way to construct that sentence using personal pronouns that doesn't take a definite stance on just how many people there are in the Kendoll collective. Actually saying 'we' would be a lie, but 'I' would ruin his, er, "mystique" and force him to admit his hours long editing sprees are all him. Then again, considering the Question Evolution crap, perhaps lying isn't such a problem for him. How's that 100 page booklet coming, Kendoll? --JeevesMkIIThe gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

He appears to lie and slander his fellows without giving it a second thought. It is a sin to promote falsehoods except under very rare circumstances set out in the Bible. It is so silly of him to pretend as he does. I may write an essay explaining the danger of this person's behavior because he continues to lie about me nearly each time I comment on his silly posts and I feel that in this context I understand some of his vainglorious and ambitious behavior better than I do all of this Question Evolution nonsense. I do not know if what he says about that "campaign" has any truth to it. I have prayed for "Conservative". He is alienating himself from his fellows and God. Nate Keaton (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy used this study to update Conservapedia proven right and Liberal Censorship, then protected those pages as well as MPR Talk and his talk page. I guess he realizes the facts are in direct opposition to his conclusion and doesn't want to hear about it. Whoover (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

He finally put a lock on MPR talk and his Talk? I wonder what took him so long. --Revolverman (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The steepest uptick was between 2000 and 2009; the biggest increase in abortion was between 1973 and 1980 (see links above). Age range showing biggest increase is 29-40 (no significant change in older women). As a sniff-test, look at middle of ranges. Andy should expect the cohort of women who were age 35 in 2005 to have a higher incidence of breast cancer because they had abortions in 1977. When they were 7. You can expand the ranges, one at a time, and see how ludicrous his conclusion is. The group of women who would show increased rates of breast cancer due to the big increase in abortion rates from 1973 to 1980 is precisely the age group that showed no historical change. Why does Andy love headlines but hate facts? Whoover (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

“”Christie wanders between conservative values and RINO positions. Christie vetoes same-sex marriage bills and other socially liberal legislation. But he has nominated Supreme Court Justices who are not conservative. He pardoned a man who received an absurdly long sentence for peaceful gun possession, but Christie has also been criticized for sometimes supporting of gun control.
On the important abortion issue, Christie is a bit of a PLINO - pro-life in name only. Christie has occasionally espoused pro-life views, but since early 2010 he has done almost nothing for unborn children. The abortion rate in New Jersey remains among the highest in the nation. Still, it is unlikely that Christie would run ads in support of abortion in certain cases, as Romney did in 2012.

The opposite of "going along with Obamacare" for a governor is not refusing Obamacare. It's having the federal government run Obamacare in your state. It will be undoubtedly be "worse." The governors knew this all along, but their red meat has passed its sell-by date so they're admitting the obvious. What do the wingnuts think a severely conservative Christie would do? Arrest anyone from Washington who steps into New Jersey? Secede? Nullify Obamacare somehow? How? Whoover (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hire Generalissimo Hurbutt and his Generator to defend New Jersey from the Washington horde! --Revolverman (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

And he oversights the trimming. Fucking grandmaster of irony. I just can't imagine how someone could do that so obviously. NorsemanCyser Melomel 22:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know why I (a lowly new account over there) would be able to read but not edit today? Is editing off for all non-admins or am I special? Any way to find out? Whoover (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It might be they haven't switched off night mode, allowing only the few chosen ones to edit. --PsyGremlinParlez! 22:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it wasn't: it was the the discussion by the parodists Markman, DamianJohn and Dvernge whether various blocks of the parodist DonnyC were justified. The discussion can still be found hereimg, hereimg and hereimg. Andy made one of his famous non-decisions: he reduced the block-length to a mere symbolic two hoursimg, a move everyone can interpret in his own way.

It looks like editing is disabled for non-admins for a second day in a row. I wonder if that's a new tactic to avoid disharmony. Whoover (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In recent times, and I don't know what brought this on, I've been imagining Ken as a character a bit like Captain Planet who is enthusiastically trying to spread a message but ... well nobody really listens. Actually it's kinda hard to explain, but if you just try picturing Captain Planet when you're reading his stuff it might work for you too. The power is yours. Ruddager (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I never saw that cartoon, but likening Ken to that character must be doing him a huge favour that he doesn't deserve. Surely Captain Planet's message was about protecting the enviroment. Ken's mssage is that Genesis is true, Darwin was wrong, atheists are fat, atheist women are butch "cold fish", Christian women are gorgeous, being gay is a choice and can be cured, kitties can fly and Ken is a great writer and wonderful dancer who can kick your bum with his martial arts skills. That's not a message anybody should be listening to.--Spud (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, Captain Planet could be summoned. Even if you combined the powers of Machismo, Quote-mining, Insomnia, Homophobia and Exciting Developments, Ken would just postpone his appearance indefinitely. Vulpius (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Karajou infinitely blocked my IP, but I can create new users! How come? Is the CP block as weak as that?--Seonookim (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's an option when you block an IP - you can choose whether or not to ban account creation from that address. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering I entered nonsense in my first sock, inserted false information in my second sock, fought for AugustO in my third sock, and blanked the talk page for the main page, why would he spare me?--Seonookim (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that Karajou isn't very bright. It's more likely that he did something wrong rather than something with any kind of plan behind it. Cock up over conspiracy, and all that. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would you be such a dull pain in the ass anyway? Blanking talk pages? What the fuck's the point? Phiwum (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Karajou is in favour of creation, no matter how illogical it is. Bevo74 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The point is to be disruptive as possible. I know Karajou will revert it anyways, but it still shaves time off Karajou. I don't aim for something like Bugler, I try to get blocked and vandalize again. I'm a wandal, NOT a parodist.--Seonookim (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You know that we don't give a toss about your vandalism and would prefer that you didn't bring it up here. Генгисmarauding 09:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am relatively knew, and I make mistakes. I won't bring something like this up again.--Seonookim (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Does she live in Canada Kenny? --Revolverman (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A skeptical man reacts to that with skepticism. "I'm skeptical about the existence of that Christian sweetheart", he says. No, wait. It's obviously utter bollocks and Ken's lying his arse off again. And, at the risk of repeating myself, just because something's boring and depressing doesn't mean it's not true. To which I will add, just because some people perceive something as being irrelevant to their lives doesn't mean it's not true either.--Spud (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ken's sweethearts are alive and well and living in an Enid Blyton novel... he has binders full of creationist ladies... seriously, nobody talks like that outside of Ken's head. The campaign must be really going well if he has to make up participants. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Actually, Ken doesn't claim the message is from his girlfriend, he said its from the girlfriend of a member of the campaign.
And he, of course asks, "My dear atheist and evolutionist friends, isn't this the sweetest letter you have ever read?" Well, Ken, no, it's not. Not even close. Not even without knowing what happened to the author. 14:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel sorry for him. I guess he's just a very, very lonely person with a deep need to be loved. StarFish (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I really like the fact that the totally real Christian sweetheart has to tell her one true love the name of her best friend. And her best friend is named "XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX"? That sounds totally made up. (Not to mention the fact that real people refer to "my fifteen year old cousin XXXX's younger brother XXXX" as "my cousin".) Phiwum (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ken for your own sake, take this down. It's embarrassing, pathetic and creepy all in one. No-one believes you. StarFish (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to help Ken out by correcting his email. You know, make it seem like real correspondence between friends who have a shared context rather than the worst kind of stilted fanfic exposition. But I know if I help him, we'll just get more fake emails with his awful attempts to sound like a real person. Jesus, Kendoll, please stop this. You're humiliating yourself. Please seek help. --JeevesMkIIThe gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Jeeves. I think this is a new low for Ken's mental health (and let's face it there have been a few). I wonder what sort of state of mind it takes to think that this was a good idea. How long before Andy gives it the trim of doom? StarFish (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Good God, I didn't realize that Ken advertised this under "In the news". I mean, sure, we all wonder precisely why the mainstream media hasn't reported on this breaking story, but still... Andy is such a pussy to allow such nonsense on the main page of his "encyclopedia". (Also, this makes it pretty clear that, contrary to what folks were guessing, User:Conservative has no hesitation to lie.) Phiwum (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The mainstream media hasn't reported on this breaking story because they're all Darwinist atheist evolutionists without ma-cheese-mo which makes them jealous of all of Ken's pretty creationist sweethearts. QED. MDB(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 16:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got one word for this guy about his girlfriend: Tuiasosopo. Whoover (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear lord, even Chris Chan has not reached this abject level pathetic bullshit. Methinks his already distant and fragile links with reality are erroding even more as tie goes by Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 18:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

My god if I was dating someone who talked like that I would stop dating someone who talked like that and feel no small measure of shame for getting catfished so badly. He's captured the essence of a joyless asexual relationship centered around ascetic deprivation and prudery. It's the kind of relationship fundies describe as being between a man, a woman, and jesus. Fuck. Email is for business and friendship between a person and the outside world. Email is for unspeakable filth between lovers. This is a man who's obviously never kissed a girl. 19:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ken was messing with Inception levels of bullshit with this one. He built a non-existent friend, who has a fake girlfriend, who has faux relatives, who in turn have imaginary friends. It was too many levels. The dream collapsed on him. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

What's hilarious is that when he makes shit up, it's still unreasonably small. He could make up any fantasy he wants, and what does he come up with? A single girlfriend is emailing a few of her pals and cousins. That's all. Phiwum (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ken fantasies you say... So there I was with my best girl Sally out for a nice evening stroll, when we happen upon a vagrant. After asking me for a few greenbacks, I ask him "Say there bub, why don't you use the hands God gave you and earn your own scratch?" He threw his head back and laughed "God!? Har-har! There ain't no God!" He was the lowest of street vermin... an ATHEIST! He went on "And since there ain't no God -that I secretly hate-, I'm gonna just take the money!" It was then that he made a move towards Sally's purse with his grubby paws. I leapt into action and gave him what for. My martial arts training, combined with God's protection, made short work of him. As he lie panting and bleeding in the gutter he looked up and asked "But.. but.. how did you beat me? I'm bigger and stronger. Evolution says I should have won!" And that's when Jesus showed me the way. I told "That was your second mistake, friend; believing in the lie that is evolution. Your first was denying the LORD!" With that, I tossed him my last Question Evolution! tract. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Will Ken follow the complete Manti Te’o - script? It could become a handy excuse: I couldn't answer your question because I have trouble sleeping my girl-friend died? --larron (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Without citations, it's impossible to know. Where did Karajou was a Petty Officer who, over the course of his career, never rose higher than E6 ranking and was discharged for failing to progress after twenty years. come from? I think that's speculation at best - he's never mentioned his rank.

If you want a good Karajou quote, showing just how batshit insane he is, I recommend this one, where he talks about the video of the Egyptian riots. His last line of "To me, this is just more evidence - rider or not - that Jesus is coming back with the next few years." Also, if you want to highlight his drawing skills, point to his picture of the sabre-tooth tiger, His cartoons were abysmal. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 18:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In the US forces you can do 20 years and get a life pension. Karajou seems to have done that. The "discharged for failing to progress" bit seems to be made up. SophieWilder 18:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I recall the rest of it came from various things he'd said on mailing lists, the wiki, etc. I think he was at one point trying to use his rank to brag/intimidate, thinking others on CP would have no idea that it wasn't that awesome a rank. I do remember military folks being surprised he was that low given his time served. --Kels (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The third sentence is wrong. As I understand it he was never an officer. He may well have been a senior sailor. --Horace (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I note that you refer to him as a "soldier" in the second paragraph under the heading "Karajou's Navy Service". That is obviously an error. --Horace (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This is all a bit creepy. Karajou's career in the military should not be the subject of speculation on a random wiki. DamoHi 00:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Karajou claims he was He was military police16 May 2007 00:58:17; "a trained cop" in the military; however I've always wondered how a trained cop doesn't know the difference between civil law and criminal law, as I think both TK & me tried to explain to him 10,000 times over the FBI incident. Or here, he believes "major investigations" - at a federal, state, and international level in this age of sequestration, can be expended with a crank phone call. The man's a parodist on CP's private mailing list. 12:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Markman, the guy who's replacing the liberal "children of Israel" and "lamb" (?) with conservative "Sons of Israel" and "sheep" throughout the bible, loves blocking users with "silly names." So I found it a little touching that he welcomedAmyPond personally. Coincidentally, I'm typing this on a laptop whose machine name is AmyPond. All my computers are named for Doctor Who characters. And no, it's not me. Whoover (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering one of CP's sysop-lites is Douglas Adams, identifying joke names isn't one of their strong suits. That said, Markman is the most obvious of obvious parodists, so anything he does is probably for amusement value. I think even Andy the oblivious might notice he's a parodist after he supported his e=mc^2 madness. --JeevesMkIIThe gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Naah, Markman is serious as cancer. He belongs to an end-of-times pseudo-jewish cult in Israel. Hipocrite (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine any serious person arguing that "Sons of Israel, every man and woman" is a better translation than "Children of Israel, every man and woman" because it "supports conservatism." Of course Andy took the bait but it's still hard to imagine a non-Schlafly following that logic. Can changing "lambs in their first year" to "sheep" (ignoring someone's request for an explanation) be anything other than trying to see how ludicrous a "conservative" change Andy will buy? I think Markman will lay low for a bit. Shortly after I busted AmyPond here, people were falling over each other to block Markman's latest friend. Whoover (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy will forever fall victim to parodists. Above and beyond all of Andy’s other qualities, he's lazy. He fancies himself as an "Idea Man". He's the one who as all of the stellar "insights", and it's up to his lackeys to run around and do all the actual planning, writing, research... you know, the actual work. And honestly, it works out suprisingly well for him. Being a parodist means inserting information into articles that you personally find over-the-top and ridiculous. If Andy sees it as parody, then it gets trimmed and you get banned. Calories expended by Schlafly? Almost nil. Anything Andy doesn't detect as parody is because it's almost certainly what Andy would have written in the first place (if he wasn’t so lazy). Again, effort expended is nil. So in the end, he gets the article he wants without doing much of the actual work. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"he gets the article he wants without doing much of the actual work" - Not really a victim then. The 'parodists' keep his site looking busy when otherwise it would be dead - 'useful idiots' as the saying goes.

I'd rather see conservapedia fail on their admins genuinely held outlandish beliefs rather than some dick parodist idea of what might outlandish. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Me too; although I do see him as a victim int he sense even though he gets the articles he wants, no conservative group will ever take them seriously, nor will he get much, if any, in the way of serious contributors; that time has past.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think most of us would like to see CP fail due to it's own homespun foolishness, and that has largely been the case. It's not a parodist strutting around in his underwear shouting that Castro and Chavez are dead, E=mc2 is liberal claptrap, and that Jesus wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going go disagree with this consensus - slightly. CP has already failed. No Conservative of any prominence has ever had anything to do with CP, so its goal of being a WP-alternative has already died. The most prominent person on the site is Andy and that's only because he's the son of increasingly irrelevant nutjob Phyllis. CP is now fun because it's a perfect expression of group-think and because Andy is so utterly incapable of spotting parodists. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Surely 99% of CP's visitors consider it a humor site. That probably holds for editors as well. I honestly don't know about Andy. He seems to know that the traffic to E=mc2 is there for the lulz; why else would he resist all attempts to make it a little saner? I gave up trying to find one single linking site with a positive spin on the article. Do you really think Andy doesn't know that? CP is a resounding success in my opinion. Whoover (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You have to remember that guys like Andy live in their own little bubble, delineated by the unshakable self-belief of the righteousness of their cause. Andy is no worse in this regard than the hundreds of creationists who had peddled their wares on the Internet over the years. They are true believers, and the more the mockery and torment piles up on them, the greater the belief that what they are doing is right and worthwhile.Tacitus (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I usually hate parodists, especially the kind that exploit Andy's fetish for seeing people blocked, but what I hate even more is how Andy never fucking learns. Really, Andyimg? This again? Don't you see what's going on here? Christ on a bike, this must be like the 15th time or something. How many times are you going to get burned by people doing exactly the same thing to curry favour with you? --JeevesMkIIThe gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, much like Andy thinks ALL pageviews are good pageviews, he thinks that anybody who agrees wholeheartedly with him, must be good. If you are AndyGood, then you are worthy of defending his project - and therefore all of conservatism - against the liberal hordes. The fact that he still hasn't cottoned on to the fact that this applies to nobody new on his wiki anymore is down to two things: 1) He is so thick it's a wonder he can breathe without instructions and 2) He still believes TK's advice that the rats will do anything to cast suspicion and doubt amongst the CP sysops. Something TK himself did like the master troll he was. PsyGremlinFale! 11:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You come up with some of the weirdest explanations. WP blocks and Andy hates that, so Andy blocks, too, so people can see how WP is bad, and that's why Andy falls for parodists. Phiwum (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Rob is right, and you'll see Andy's mentality in Ed Poor as well. They assume that conservatives are persecuted on Wikipedia, so it's only fair that conservatives should get to persecute people back on their own turf. You keep making the mistake that this is a man of moral conviction who is keen on playing the moral high road. He isn't. He's a noble-born lawyer who has lobbied for the widespread use of asbestos,going so far as to blame the destruction of the World Trade Center on the EPA's regulation of Asbestos. His mother is a (female!) lobbyist who argues that spousal rape does not exist, and that the Violence Against Women Act is a conspiracy designed explicitly to allow feminists to harvest money from false accusations of rape and use that money to bribe judges to become pawns of the feminist lobby. This is a sentiment that was passed on to Schlafly himself. Andy doesn't care for the truth, though he assumes that his brand of conservativism is always true. He cares only that his side wins, and he will freely lie and slander and censor if it gets him closer to that objective WilliamR (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

With all of Andy's looniness, I think his fixation about the IOC dropping wrestling because liberals has flown beneath the radar. I guess that bothers him because he's reminding us of this glorious theory. His ally, Bulgaria has joined the protest. (So have most US programs, and Andy's other ally, Iran, but for some reason Andy has missed that.) BTW, the reason liberals hate wrestling is feminazis. Whoover (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, if you actually take about five minutes to learn about the story rather than squawking "political correctness! feminists!", you know that it's actually IOC politics playing out. They were going to drop either wrestling or the modern pentathlon. Everyone expected they'd drop the pentathlon -- after all, wrestling is as old as the ancient Olympics -- but apparently someone on the IOC has personal ties to the pentathlon, so they kept it. It's not a matter of feminism; it's a matter of the IOC being a corrupt old boys network. MDB(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 12:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the modern pentathlon also has a strong connection to the modern Olympics - they were both invented by Baron Coubertin. I always saw it reported as being unlikely the MP would be dropped because of that connection. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Any reason why teh parodists have started translating the king assfly bible? After the last debacle I very much doubt Andy will give sysop privileges to Markman (who is a sock of that liberal troublemaker MattyD and BryanF) or DamianJohn (who must be Ace McWicked since he is from NZ)and Bum buddy, DonnyC ain't going anywhere either --GhostofTK (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Who knows; who cares. And your nick is in exceedingly bad taste. I suggest you change it. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't edited CP in over a year. Damian isn't me, but he is a kiwi. Acei9 03:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Anybody have an idea when/why/how Andy decided to conflate the second law of thermodynamics and Heisenberg uncertainty? That seems to be the foundation of his view of physics and it's another of his unique fantasies. Whoover (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggested before we should write a Schlafly Physics article based on his misunderstandings/rejections of modern physics. Schlafly Physics seems to be linked very closely to Schlafly Theology. Jesus seems to be a quantum superhero and the devil, Chaos, is his arch-nemesis. --Night Jaguar (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Kind of surprising he would embrace quantum mechanics, given its post-Newtonian origins, but then again, he does tend to be consistent in his inconsistencies. There is also the possibility that since Einstein famously dismissed quantum theory with the words "My God does not play dice." this is just another opportunity for him to say "Suck it, Einstein" to the man who supposedly helped usher in the Age of Relativism... or something.Tacitus (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Most cranks, like Andy, are attracted to quantum physics. Standard physics has a rude way of telling people that their half-baked ideas are stupid. While the pop-culture version of quantum physics makes anything possible. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've recommended websites to my sister several times. She's often told me what our mother has been up to recently as well. How come that never made the news?--Spud (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Does your sister refer to your mother as her mother in conversations with you? 14:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No because she's a real person and she talks like one.--Spud (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

At first I thought sister referred to "sister in Christ" like nuns, but I think Ken really means his imaginary girlfriend's actual sister. I can't believe he's so terrible at this. Seriously, how hard is it to write an email? --JeevesMkIIThe gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to engage in creative writing, particularly dialogue, then you need to put yourself in the position of your characters; understand their point of view, even if you don't agree with it. This is something Ken signally fails at. Ken cannot understand anyone with a POV different from his own. Everything Ken writes is a reflection of his own mind. He has never shown any empathy with other people, the fact that he hides behind his veil of secrecy shows that he cannot engage with others on a meaningful level. His utter failure with the opposite sex - even lovely, long-haired, creationist ladies - is a result of his lack of understanding of what women want. I think he lives in a very sad, dull, cold, and lonely bunny-hole. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 17:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone remember the picture of the QE! pamphlets on a table scattered among others at a booth (determined to indoctrinate children in the background) with a larger-than-average woman sitting at it? It could be her! lol NorsemanCyser Melomel 18:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Err, that's a crummy thing to notice. So what if Ken's long haired creationist sweetheart is overweight? (well, it does matter because he's a creep for talking such unbelievable shit about people he doesn't know and conflating atheism and obesity on either side of causation, but it says nothing about these people themselves) Lots of people here, people you "know on the internet," are larger-than-average and you like them fine without knowing that. 19:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that Norseman. I understand exactly what your were saying and you're right. 19:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No offense taken, I should've added that it's only descriptive from memory, and not meant to be anything more. You're so nice <3 NorsemanCyser Melomel 17:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ken, you are just so utterly pathetic that it's hard to know whether to laugh or pity you or both. You debate poorly. You are terrible at making coherent points and justifying them. You already had a penchant for lying and making things up, but this "sweetheart" shit is sad. Your messages to Fergus and MDB are sad. And it's sad to see how obsessive you are about gloating and taunting people from your private sanctuary, where you get to issue challenges for people to "debate" someone else when you yourself have been challenged a dozen or more times in the last year and tucked tail like a bitch. Come on out. Any number of us would be delighted to humiliate you in a fair forum, unlike Schlock of god's talkbox. See that reader feed? You see that your multiple attempts to get your sorry arguments and petulant whining straight are all right there? No oversighting, buddy. 01:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Having been around my fair-share of woman I can assure Ken they don't talk like that. Nobody talks like that. Acei9 02:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

My reply to the Kendoll Kollective:

"Uh, I DID accept the debate offer. Except Viva isn't interested because he thinks the questions are stupid, and Shock bans me instantly every time he finds me in his chatroom. It's kind of hard to debate under those circumstances, as I'm sure you'll understand.

Here's an idea; why don't YOU debate me? If you're confident that I can't answer your 15 questions it's time to come out of your intellectual bunny hole and prove it.

This comment is going up on RW, so there's no use trying to pretend I never made it."

He may be legit, but then a lot of legit scholars and scientist propose ideas that turn out to be wrong. He might have a point in that in some cases, like the ultra-orthodox Jewish community in Israel, birth rates are very high, and if sustained, will quickly outpace their neighbors, but I am very skeptical about the ability for fundamentalist communities to do this on a scale large enough to more than temporarily affect the demographics of one small region or country.

The birth rate in the vast majority of Muslim countries has been dropping as they begin to prosper and acquire better access to healthcare and birth control, and there have been studies that show that the birth rates of immigrants from developing countries to Western nations begins to drop as soon as they arrive in their new home, and by the third generation is closing in on the norm for the wider population.

Secularism is a powerful lure for the young, I just don't see how fundamentalist religious communities, especially in secular nations, can keep their children and grandchildren from defecting in large enough numbers to make a difference in the long run.Tacitus (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

And after all, the religious revivals of the Third Great Awakening in the United States had all but disappeared by the 1960s, a mere 50 years later. So perhaps it's just cyclical is all. *shrugs* Granted it took two world wars and embarassing prosperity to get there, but still. 147.138.87.241 (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, particularly in the case of the United States, the young are defecting from religion at an accelerating rate (currently about 34% of 20-25 year-olds are now classed as "nones"), and I don't see that changing any time soon. Ken might not like it, but I think the odds are good that by the end of this decade, at least half of young adults will decline to identify with a particular religion.Tacitus (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it's all about the memetics not genetics, you can't win a war of ideas by out-breeding your opponent. However be warned that the US churches could reverse the trend you've focused on because it's not about God really. This generation are slightly more sceptical about the possibility of all-knowing Sky Daddies but they mostly leave the Church because they find its views on homosexuality specifically and social policy generally to be repugnant. That's why so many of them end up counted in non-specifically "spiritual" categories in surveys. They have never worried about the existence of God, it wasn't important to them, but the idea that their friend James is doomed to an eternity of torture because he fantasises about Daniel Craig rather than Bérénice Marlohe or Naomie Harris just repels them, as if the church had started insisting they eat dog faeces in a ritual instead of tiny pieces of bread wafer. Tialaramex (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If US churches did manage to reverse the trend, it would be a remarkable achievement, unique (I believe) in the modern western world. Once the trend away from religion begins (in a free society) then absent any external pressure, like war or natural disaster, it has never, as yet, been reversed. At some point, of course, it'll slow down and stabilize, but really, the USA has only just begun to travel down this road in comparison with other western nations, which is why I am confident there is more to come.Tacitus (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going back and forth with TerryH about his re-blogging of Bradlee Dean material, because the guy's such an offensive ass that he makes Terry and the regular CNAV crew look reasonable by comparison. At one point he basically says "Since this gets under your skin so much, you'll be getting more of him". Go ahead, I said - it's good for a laugh, and I'm looking forward to seeing who else you invite to the crazy-party.

So all I can say is that "I was asking for it" when RoseAnn followed up with this gem. Holy crap on a cracker, this is bad - it makes Karajou's stuff another Doonesbury by comparison. I've brought this upon us, and for that I apologize. --DinsdaleP (talk) 03:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, Chris Christie, having the nerve to cross party-lines in the wake of a severe disaster in order to help the people in his state more effectively. What an asshole. 147.138.87.241 (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I often wonder... is shit like that stupid comic funny to anybody? --Inquisitor (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nope, it's just more smiling and nodding in agreement until it's time to go back to the trough for more feed. Poht (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Three panels of thick lipped, big eared racial stereotype Obama and a final panel noting "everyone thinks they're racists." It's comedy genius. Could use moar bone through the nose though. --JeevesMkIIThe gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Three different fonts for the speech bubbles? All very professionally done. But remembering how TerryH was drooling over the quality of a 13-year old's YouTube video these wingnuts are easily deceived. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 08:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That youtuber took down his QE! videos and put up some trolling crap last I remember, but it still shows that some idiots fall for the most obvious. NorsemanCyser Melomel 17:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No two Christies look the same. I'm not even sure the guy in the last panel is supposed to be him. The haircut looks Mormon to me. I have no idea who she is. Whoover (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good grief that is awful. I think it's supposed to be Christie in the final panel, but I dunno who the woman is either, or how she's calmly sipping a drink when her left arm has a massive compound fracture. Jeeves has it right though - three panels of racist stereotypes followed by a declaration of innocence is just incredible. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Took me awhile to figure out... but the woman is supposed to be Michelle Obama. --Inquisitor (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You might be right, but if so I think Sadie Basil can get a job as a fresco restorer given her artistic skills. rpeh •T•C•E• 09:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Roseanne is a vile excuse for a human being, probably the second worst on the site after Dwight Cornhole and just ahead of Nick Skin Disease. And after looking at Sadie's "cartoon," all I can is, "Come back Karajou, all is forgiven!" PsyGremlinParla! 09:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Is there even a joke to it? At all? It just seems like four vaguely connected panels.Maybe the first one is kinda funny, but... Bleah. And why the devil is it called "Conservative Cannibals"? Are they acknowledging that they're eating their own? MDB(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

With due respect to Jeeves and Rpeh, the Obama figure doesn't look like a racial stereotype to me. It looks like a caricature of Obama. I never thought big ears was a traditional stereotype, and the lips aren't particularly large. (And after five years in Holland, I have some exposure to insensitive racial images.) Let's not allege racism where it's ambiguous. These folks have enough real sins to answer for. Phiwum (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Er, right. The fact that almost every nation regards blackface as distasteful is why it's noteworthy that it's still part of the Dutch Christmas celebration. Doing blackface back when people did blackface is less noteworthy. Phiwum (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Dragging our attention back to Hurlbut for a moment - I knew that he could read lips from still photographs (see here, where Obama apparently slurs Netanyahu), but I didn't know that he had a dead zone that allowed him to read the future from seeing a photograph, too. In this comment, he ascertains from a police training target that a pregnant woman with a gun is (will be?) defending herself against LEOs invading her home without warrant or probable cause. I'm actually surprised he lowballed it to that degree - why not have the woman defending herself against foreign UN Agenda 21 paratroopers who are trying to force her into an Obamacare FEMA abortion camp because they haven't yet made their monthly White Christian quota?--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Michelle! Great work, Inquisitor. I should have recognized her by her bare arms, dislocated triceps notwithstanding. Terry can be defused simply by suggesting the pregnant lady targets are to have scarves painted over their hair before deployment. Whoover (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The first thing that I thought of when I saw that last panel was Get Your War On by David Rees, since he used clipart throughout. This looks like a shitty sketch referenced from clipart (not even traced). Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 02:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the blog that the "joker Obama" image Karajou used in his latest MPR update came from. The blogger is kind of insane, and his posts seem to border on having neo-nazi tendencies. A lot of the blog is dedicated to hatred against African Americans, which is especialy bizarre when you consider the fact that the blogger himself is apparently black. WilliamR (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Passing thought. In CS Lewsi' book The Last Battle (see the narrative on Wikipedia), the Dwarves when going through the stable door think they are inside the stable rather than into 'the real world' and everything beyond that the other characters find. Could the allegory be applied as an analogy to Conservapedians - they stay within what they perceive to be real rather than 'what is actually to be found' 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a particularly apt analogy because the Dwarves in The Last Battle are atheists who refuse to believe in the afterlife, even when they have passed into the afterlife. As far as the CP crowd are concerned, we are those Dwarves. Anyway, I think Andy and Ken know they're talking bollocks most of the time. Karajou is just enjoying being a dick and Ed Poor is just enjoying playing with his. Hurlbut seems to have gone way beyond deluded, though.--Spud (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The CP lot refuse to believe they are in a scientifically-explicable world and are content to call what they are given cabbage leaves and stale water (or whatever the dwarves think they are eating - I read the book a long time ago).

Whatever else the CP lot are refusing to think outside the box they have put themselves into. One can be godly and scientific - paraphrasing St Paul 'when I was a child I thought as a child' - the 'explanations' provided in the Bible and elsewhere were the best that those at the time could develop ('you need to create the world first so things can be put on it... and without light nothing grows, so that comes next, animals live on plants, so plants were created first... etc) merged with ethics and philosophy etc: now we have better explanations. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my diagnosis: bipolar crank magnetism. Whoover (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Update: I see where the crank himself cops to autism. He still sounds manic to me but I withdraw my diagnosis as his case is much too complicated for me. Whoover (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

And what is AugustO's game anyway? He must realize he's in an asylum run by the inmates. His response to Gryfin's raving is poignant in its totally irrelevant appeal to logic. He tries to demonstrate the answer is to be found in dimensional analysis when the question ("random" vs. "tangible") is of another plane. I think he's sincere, but what can he hope to accomplish? Whoover (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Give us some more stuff to WIGO. As I said in one of the archives, he seems not to be working in good faith. He's like a psychologist studying lunatical behavior.--Seonookim (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nuts, as opposed to manic? It means that Gryfin/Jonathan Grey is off his meds. AugustO knows that. Apparently Andy doesn't. (Actually, the evidence is ambiguous. Andy only restored part of that wonderful edit. I think it got a bit too disconnected from reality even for Andy.) CP at its best. Whoover (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Markman is in Israel. [2]. Astute wikipedians should be able to figure out who he is in one guess. Hipocrite (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that is his IP address? And who does that make him? DamoHi 22:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

14:16, 1 March 2013 Markman (Talk | contribs) blocked Markman (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Named after a Doctor Who character. Thanks for the people at RW for pointing this out.)

Yer right, he's a bad parodist - ref blocking cp:User:JohnQu, who reverted vandalism, nominated the pure-spam ("An insight to the world of dental care and achieving an oral expert") article for deletion and then got the banhammar for "trolling." Hipocrite (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

He's just sworn fealty to Andy, complete with creepy Ob Civis Servator medal. He also seems to specialize in "enforcement," while another userbox declares that liberalism comes from Fascism. (This is the "New Deal inspired by Mussolini" meme.) I say he's trying way too hard. Whoover (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's possible that the right combination of low IQ and personality disorder can mimic bad parodist (Ken comes to mind), but it's not the explanation favored by Occam's razor. Whoover (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear goat, not even andy and his fellow sysops can be taken in by this shiteimg. Andy knows this guy is a parodist but is letting him shit all over his blog. If it weren't andy I would say amazing.Oldusgitus (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

And now the two parodists, dvergne and markman are flashing their wiliesimg at each other. And both are pretending to be the true, righteous, upholders of the cp tradition. Oldusgitus (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as the admin is concerned, bullying, contempt, and arbitrary retaliatory blocks are CP tradition. It strikes me from watching Markman that Ken is essentially no different. He is and has been a troll for a number of years and his treatment of CP has only accentuated his pattern. He expresses contempt for Andy, taking advantage of every opportunity to promote his own interests in such a way as to discredit CP to any but .000001% of the population. Were this not CP, Ken would be branded a straight up troll. The very notion of "parodist" is a CP-centric meme that means very little to me. The question is whether someone is disruptive and acts in bad faith. That's Ken to a T. 16:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I LOLed when I saw that his minor contributions weren't adding some more or less helpful category, but adorning dozens of articles with the {{uncited}} template. Ouch. --larron (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not just dozens, almost literally hundreds of articlesimg. They're all stubs by AlanE, Markman's current target, and he's just systematically going through all Alan's articles and adding the template. That is some pretty dedicated trolling, or monumental pettiness. Probably both. Shakedangle (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

He won't last long. Adding mass fact tags is a no-no at Conservapedia. I suspect he will be gone before the week is up. He had potential but this was a grave mistake on his part. DamoHi 21:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

On the Block Logimg, Markman blocks himself the unblocks himself. I've seen people shortening their blocks to ten minutes. Does anybody know how/why they do that? I'm curious. LM105

If you have block rights, you see the option to "change block." This allows you to change the parameters of the block. You can switch talk page editing, the user's IP, block length, and other things.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I know why nobody hacks into Andy's account and blocks all the other sysops. LM105 (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hacking into andys account would likely lead to removing those sysops rights, not just a block. but you don't because the fuck would be the point?--MikallakiM 02:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You could remove everyone's rights in 30 seconds from the API. And then Andy could roll the database back. Whoopdiefuckingdoo. 03:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I would think that blocking every IP would have a much greater effect on the site. Although he could just roll the database back, the peons couldn't edit without giving away their IP's -- GhostofTK (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, the worst about hacking into Andy's account would be finding out what he uses for a password. I know we get to see how crazy he his every day, but I think that information would represent a look into his mind that I would be scared to view. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, TK's passwords were creepy. I agree. I don't want to see what kind of shit Andy says to himself when he's keeping secrets. 19:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Coincidentally enough, i was thinking about too. What would someone like Andy use as a password for their ultra-right-wing site? The only thing i can think of is something like "liberalssuck123". (talk to a)Nihilist 19:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

For Andy's "consistency is the hobgoblin of sanity" file: Nobel prizes come up two ways in E=mc2 discussions. No prize has ever been or ever will be awarded for it. And no physicist who expresses doubts about it will ever be awarded a Nobel prize. Whoover (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy's sole goal in an argument is to erect an impenetrable wall of bullshit. His opponent attempts to tear down that wall. But they will eventually grow tired of having to dig shit out from under their fingernails, so they move on. That's when Andy's self-delusion circuits kick in. See, Andy knows he's full of shit, but his reasoning goes like this "Hmmm, they were unable to defeat my bullshit. The Truth can easily defeat bullshit. They must not have been telling the Truth. Which makes me right! I win!" --Inquisitor (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Has Andy always considered relativity "liberal claptrap" or is that something we can witness him discovering if we go back far enough into his CP contributions? I sort of get the feeling that he initially was just a little skeptical of it at first, and his complete rejection of it is a more recent phenomenon, but I might be basing this on nothing. Anyone know? DickTurpis (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it comes down to Andy being skeptical and asking some inane questions which someone then answers, telling him how he has misunderstood a certain aspect of relativity. As we know Andy can never be wrong and is supremely stubborn so he digs his heels in further and further until his skepticism becomes outright denial. It is a familiar pattern. Acei9 21:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Andy's anti-relativity bullshit goes back to the 20th centry. I have vivid memories of him and his stupid brother trolling sci.physics back around the turn of the century. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Roger. Even though he broadly disagrees with Andy when it comes to Relativity, he was still quite the troll in his own right. Quickly derailing every topic he was in by either injecting pointless and obscure aspects of math and physics in general. Or inserting fundie crap into threads where it didn't belong, in particular. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a very familiar pattern. Another example is when he casually mentioned once that someone from the public did something better than an expert. Now its an incontrovertible principle that the Best Of The Public is better than an expert in every single possible occurrance. He gets talked into defending positions that he never intended and since he sees himself as infallible he can't back down. DamoHi 21:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

For all Roger's Andy-bashing on relativity, I do remember him posting somewhere on CP that Einstein was "just a poster boy for relativity." Can't find it now - maybe somebody with better wiki-fu than I can find it. PsyGremlinTal! 06:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Again: Roger thinks that the theory of relativity is correct and therefore Einstein didn't invent it, while Andy thinks that the theory of relativity is false and therefore Einstein did invent it. They don't agree on the theory, but they are both convinced that Einstein was a fraud. --larron (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)